| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2013-10-16 20:25:37 |
| Message-ID: | 525EF641.6050203@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/09/2013 11:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>
> The assumption that each connection won't use lots of work_mem is also
> false, I think, especially in these days of connection poolers.
>
>
Andres has just been politely pointing out to me that my knowledge of
memory allocators is a little out of date (i.e. by a decade or two), and
that this memory is not in fact likely to be held for a long time, at
least on most modern systems. That undermines completely my reasoning above.
Given that, it probably makes sense for us to be rather more liberal in
setting work_mem that I was suggesting.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-10-16 20:30:56 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-16 20:10:18 | Re: removing old ports and architectures |